What's New
Star Wars Roleplay: Chaos

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What do you think of this?

Progflaw99

Well-Known Member
Progflaw99
tumblr_inline_nltz3tCmfd1tr5v0b.gif
 

Valiens Nantaris

Head Admin
Valiens Nantaris
Admin
Character Bio
[member="Ludolf Vaas"]
Is it because Harry Potter has more than 1% female speaking parts in it?

I believe LOTR has 5 female speaking characters as opposed to about 200 male.

Not sure how feminist Harry Potter is when the male main character defeats the male villain with the help of his male headmaster, male friend and Hermione the female friend.
I mean, it's more balanced gender wise. I'm not seeing a need to storm the barricades to fight off the femnazis though.

[member="Natasi Fortan"]
 

Ludolf Vaas

"Trust me"
Ludolf Vaas
Character Bio
[member="Valiens Nantaris"] Only 5 female speaking parts! Oy freakin' vey!

There's a reason why Harry Potter is fawned over by blue-haired feminists. That Buzzfeed video was not a joke you know. Besides promoting pretty much every leftist narrative in existence and basically being a handbook for everything you're supposed to believe, Harry Potter is just poop generally. Pretty much everything is ripped off from Tolkien. Which to be fair is true of a lot of books in the fantasy genre considering how pivotal Lord of the Rings was, but J.K. Rowling was especially egregious with her copying.

Movies were entertaining though, I'll admit.
 

Valiens Nantaris

Head Admin
Valiens Nantaris
Admin
Character Bio
[member="Ludolf Vaas"]
I would argue that the two have very little in common at all. And while all fantasy owes a debt to Tolkien, this one has much more drawn from other sources.

  • Earth setting.
  • 'Semi-Modern' time.
  • Magic is common and often practised. Ironically the 'normal' people don't know magic exists.
  • Lack of humanoid correlations to LOTR species.
  • Predominately children main characters.
  • An antagonist who has no vast armies, but a small clique of followers. Said antagonist also is quite chatty.
  • Very limited narrative viewpoint almost always to Harry.

There are similarities but that's a lot of differences from LOTR.
 

Ludolf Vaas

"Trust me"
Ludolf Vaas
Character Bio
[member="Valiens Nantaris"] Superficial things have been changed, yes, but at its core, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings tell almost identical stories at times, with nearly identical characters.

For example, Voldemort IS Sauron. There is no questioning that at all. Both start out as weak before growing strong, involving the use of outside objects, which both plots revolve around. Voldemort is looking for the Sorceror's Stone, Sauron is looking for the One Ring. Later the Horcruxes take the position of the Ring as both villains bind their soul to an object(s), and the only way to defeat them is to destroy said objects. Voldemort is also so evil he "cannot be named" to the point where even uttering his name invokes fear, which is pretty much a straight clone of Sauron. Both also have evil somewhat bumbling henchmen who do their will. Wormtongue in Sauron's case, Wormtail in Voldemort's. Not a coincidence.

You could literally write an entire essay on this. This is just one example.
 

RIP Carlyle Rausgeber

"It's all been bloody marvellous..."
RIP Carlyle Rausgeber
Character Bio
Ludolf Vaas said:
Harry Potter is retarded, read Lord of the Rings instead.
Click to expand...
Eh, I'm going to paint a massive target on the back of my head. But Lord of the Rings was one of the worst reads I've ever encountered. Not the worst professionally written book, or by any means the worst piece of literature I've come across. But Jesus Christ, there were times where I even questioned if those movies were even part of the same book.

Tolkiens prose for me, droned on, and on, and didn't know when to stop. The references to the Vikings were alright. But the way things were described, and how the plot progressed were abominible. And I realize Lord of the Rings wasn't meant to have huge fantasy battles, but the fact they glossed over the murderous, bloody detail made my 9 year old self salty as kark.

Harry Potter on the other hand is incredibly easy to read, and I think it's far better than Tolkien's works. I realize it is due to setting, but the characters are easier to identify with. And the problems they face (bullying, among other things. Not including hairless Ralph Fiennes), were things I could identify with. Perhaps its because I am younger, and I grew up with these books. But for me, they had more of a lasting impact. Even if it did turn me into a Marxist.

Not a shitepost here, but could you elaborate on the leftist infiltration of Harry Potter? I didn't really notice it, though I wasn't as politically aware back then.
 

Valessia Brentioch

Guest
V
I too would like to hear the 'leftist' argument of Harry Potter. I mean, as far as I can see it still has a long way to go at least in my opinion. I do agree with [member="Carlyle Rausgeber"] though. Harry Potter by far was easier to read than Lord of the Rings, although I was required to read the Hobbit in 7th grade. I chose to read Harry Potter, and it is easier to read. I'd also argue that if by left or feminist you mean, 'inclusive,' then okay fine, Harry Potter is leftist.
​
​
H_final.jpg
​
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NndbX1vXVCM[/media]​
 

Ludolf Vaas

"Trust me"
Ludolf Vaas
Character Bio
Carlyle Rausgeber said:
Not a poodooepost here, but could you elaborate on the leftist infiltration of Harry Potter? I didn't really notice it, though I wasn't as politically aware back then.
Click to expand...
Well I don't know the Harry Potter universe super well since I haven't read the books in great detail, I've only seen the movies once or twice. But let's start with a direct quote from J.K. Rowling herself:

"I wanted Harry to leave our world and find the exact same problems in the wizarding world. So you have the intent to impose a hierarchy, you have bigotry, and this notion of purity - which is this great fallacy, but it crops up all over the world. People like to think themselves superior and that if they can pride themselves on nothing else they can pride themselves on perceived purity."

So right off the bat we have this notion that hierarchy is implicitly a bad thing, and should be replaced by more egalitarian forms of social structure no doubt. I don't think I need to explain that this is essentially the cornerstone of leftist thinking. Equality is enshrined as an ideal over hierarchy, and this idea is the basis for everything else Rowling writes.

That leads to her talk about "purity", which figures prominently in her narrative. She goes on to say that the notion of purity "is a great fallacy". It's easy to see what she's clearly talking about racial purity here. Race is in fact a huge theme in the Harry Potter books. Rowling is communicating that there is no such thing as racial purity, therefore there is no such thing as race, therefore race is an insignificant and superficial social category and anyone who believes otherwise is, in her words, a "bigot". Her use of characters and villains throughout the books serve to reinforce these beliefs, which are essentially leftist dogmas. The invention of purebloods, half-bloods and muggleborns are clear stand-ins for this belief system. The villains are almost exclusively purebloods who are portrayed as unapologetically evil and their actions and beliefs, such as the Ministry of Magic passing laws to exclude the other "races", completely irredeemable and beyond the pale. In other words, the notion of "pureblood" is shown to be completely trivial and meaningless and only leading to cruelty. This is a clear parallel Rowling is drawing here, not just to Nazis, which she claims to have drawn many influences from (obviously), but to racial identity in general. Through purebloods she is deconstructing national identity, and specifically White identity here - made obvious by the blatant overtures to Nazis - a necessary first step in the cultural Marxist's quest to dismantle Western countries in favor of a borderless post-racial society.

It's quite obvious that Rowling herself holds these beliefs. She further pathologizes "racists" by implying that the only reason one could be proud of their race is if they have "nothing else to pride themselves on" Her treatment of the heroes of the story further drives the point home; Hogwarts is a multicultural mishmosh of all races and genders, which will always, always triumph over the bigoted forces of evil in the end, thereby enshrining the ideals of "diversity" and "inclusivity". The evil pureblood laws passed by the Ministry of Magic have been rightly compared to the "oppressive" immigration laws of the US and UK by left-wing thinkers. You get the picture. Race has been sufficiently deconstructed and its proponents thoroughly humiliated, therefore the logical next step is to open the borders to anyone and everyone. Later on we even see Rowling confirming this through her treatment of Hermione's character. According to Rowling, after the seventh book Hermione takes a job in the Ministry of Magic, where she is a "progressive voice who ensured the eradication of oppressive, pro-pureblood laws". It doesn't get any more explicit than that.

This is pretty much the tip of the iceberg, and again, I don't claim to be an expert on Harry Potter, but the symbolism is in my mind pretty blatant. I don't have much more time to write any lengthier posts on the subject, and other people have written far more laboriously on it than I have, on both these points and others. Check the wikipedia article on it, if you want.
 

RIP Carlyle Rausgeber

"It's all been bloody marvellous..."
RIP Carlyle Rausgeber
Character Bio
Alrighty, so [member="Ludolf Vaas"], your beef with Harry Potter is that the pureblood-mudblood thing is an allergory for racism? I'm sorry, it's a Saturday morning, I'm groggy as all hell. To be honest, I think she tackled it in a really good manner. I personally agree with her in the sense that races are stupid, and anyone who brags about theirs being superior has a few screws loose. As shown with Hermione, she accels in her field, and doesn't need to be some kind of pureblood supremacist.

I feel really bad about this reply considering the wealth of analysis you've given me, but I've got other things to do. Sorry about the short reply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top Bottom